|
Joel Tenenbaum has file sharing verdict reinstated
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 18 September, 2011
Joel Tenenbaum, the graduate student who was convicted of illegally sharing 30 tracks via P2P has had his original massive damages verdict reinstated.
Tenenbaum was originally fined $675,000, but the fine was reduced to $67,500 last summer, after a judge deemed the original penalty unconstitutional and "excessive."
Seeking an even further reduction, Tenenbaum has been rejected, and ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
Senior Member
|
18. September 2011 @ 21:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
I dont see how sharing 30 songs is worthy of a fine as large as $675,000, thats a little excessive. where is this number brought from?
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
scorpNZ
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
18. September 2011 @ 21:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
lol..@ mention of "jumped over other procedures and went directly to the constitutional argument"..is that the short answer of haven't dragged on long enough for lawyers etc to make more money
|
Member
|
18. September 2011 @ 23:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
Pfft who needs a constitution when we have all these other rules which were established later which generate way higher profits?
|
|
jonyjoe101
Newbie
|
18. September 2011 @ 23:38 |
Link to this message
|
In the constitution there is suppose to be something against "cruel or unusual punishment", this definitely falls under both category's.
Rule one when the gestapo comes to arrest you deny everything, then say I want to talk to a lawyer. Nobody in the government is your friend. They all work for "the man".
|
|
Hopium
Member
|
19. September 2011 @ 00:39 |
Link to this message
|
wait till the tea party hears this. oh wait no media pays attention to the atrocities happening on net legislation and IP.
@hikaricor lol, i thought the same. that means http://www.art404.com/5million.html is worth alot more now. im thinking about buying and external just to fill it and think of it as my way of buying gold :P
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. September 2011 @ 00:46
|
|
numscull
Junior Member
|
19. September 2011 @ 02:09 |
Link to this message
|
Now it will be appealled and knocked back down to $67,500. The merry-go-round continues. The RIAA lawyers have found a cash cow to endlessly milk.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
19. September 2011 @ 02:47 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
DigitalTrends explains that the main issue the appeals court had with the original reduction was that the ruling Judge "jumped over other procedures and went directly to the constitutional argument."
Yeah...who needs the constitution anyway?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
19. September 2011 @ 10:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
No profit no crime............
Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.
|
|
Mysttic
Senior Member
|
19. September 2011 @ 14:36 |
Link to this message
|
Oh didn't yea hear, the RIAA managed to meet privately with said judge to show him why the constitution should have no merit. I believe the judge was convinced with a suitcase loaded with enough Franklin's for the judge to say RIAA has this win.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. September 2011 @ 14:37
|
|
llongtheD
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
19. September 2011 @ 23:17 |
Link to this message
|
It's sad that the RIAA can't move on. It's apparent that they just don't have the creativity to come up with a successful business model in this changing market.
Chasing college students for a few bucks, its sad, just sad.
If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.
|
|
hearme0
Senior Member
|
20. September 2011 @ 01:51 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Thoatih12:
I dont see how sharing 30 songs is worthy of a fine as large as $675,000, thats a little excessive. where is this number brought from?
You don't see it because IT'S NOT WORTH THAT. Songs will never ever ever generate that amount of cash..........F'ing PERIOD. This guy is getting screwed. These prick judges need to recognize that artists make their money on concerts and touring with 35 dollar T-shirts and 60 dollar sweatshirts and 3 dollar bumper stickers and 8 dollar beers and 4 dollar sodas, NOT ALBUM SALES.
|
|
patrick_
Junior Member
|
20. September 2011 @ 03:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
FIRST you verify if something is legal according to the constitution, and after that you check other laws right? That's the whole point of having a consitution. Did this judge smoke something bad?
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
xtago
Senior Member
|
20. September 2011 @ 07:54 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by hearme0:
Originally posted by Thoatih12:
I dont see how sharing 30 songs is worthy of a fine as large as $675,000, thats a little excessive. where is this number brought from?
You don't see it because IT'S NOT WORTH THAT. Songs will never ever ever generate that amount of cash..........F'ing PERIOD. This guy is getting screwed. These prick judges need to recognize that artists make their money on concerts and touring with 35 dollar T-shirts and 60 dollar sweatshirts and 3 dollar bumper stickers and 8 dollar beers and 4 dollar sodas, NOT ALBUM SALES.
I have to say When Brittany spears was touring in Australia last time one of the staff had a video up on you tube which had a manager or boss talking to another staff member who asked the question "how does she [britney spears] make money if the concerts doesn't make any money and the boss guy starts saying it's via the royalties from radio etc." he stopped talked once he seen the staff member with camera walking around.
which was interesting, as the guy stops straight away and kinder piss that something might have been recorded
|
